Ann Cheri Laning

My experience with Ann Laning as Minor's Counsel demonstrates a profound failure to advocate for her client’s best interests, instead contributing to 14 years of vexatious litigation that caused significant emotional distress to the child, the child’s siblings and financial ruin to the family. 1.... Alleged Failure to Maintain Attorney-Client Relationship: Ms. Laning is alleged to have maintained a non-existent or inadequate attorney-client relationship with the minor child. Crucially, Ann Laning maintained zero contact with her client (the minor child) for over a year, yet exchanged countless phone calls and emails with the parent she was supporting. This claim is supported by the fact that the minor child formally terminated Ann Laning's representation on two separate occasions following his emancipation on July 14, 2025. 2. Pattern of Extreme Litigation Bias: Ann Laning demonstrated an extreme, documented pattern of bias throughout the litigation, consistently recommending that the court: • Grant all requests made by the opposing party. • Deny all requests made by my legal counsel. This pattern raises serious concerns that her recommendations were not based on an objective assessment of the minor child's best interests or a thorough investigation of the facts, but on a systematic prejudice against one party. 3. Lack of Factual Familiarity and Due Diligence: Ann Laning formally admitted that she had not read the entire file due to its voluminous nature (over 650 filings). Her orders and recommendations often failed to account for the comprehensive factual record, leading to the court ordering extreme and punitive measures, including: • The involuntary kidnapping and transport of the minor child (known as gooning”, which caused significant emotional distress to a child with an already diagnosed anxiety disorder. • Support for ongoing litigation that resulted in the imposition of unaffordable financial obligations on one party without due process to determine the ability to pay. 4. Post-Emancipation Conduct: Following the minor child's legal emancipation, Ann Laning requested that the court re-appoint her should the emancipation order be "set aside." This request was made despite the court having just dismissed all Requests for Order (RFOs) and the minor child having explicitly rejected her representation and terminated her twice. This suggests a persistent and unwarranted attempt to remain involved in the case against her former client's wishes and in contradiction of the court’s final ruling. Conclusion: Ms. Laning’s conduct demonstrates a failure to serve the best interests of her minor client and a pattern of systemic bias that fueled vexatious litigation, contributing significantly to the over $1,000,000 in costs incurred and the severe emotional harm inflicted upon the minor child and the other siblings.